Do you think death penalty is a proper way of punishment?

I think that death penalty and execution can be a proper way of capital punishment. I believe that if someone has taken other peoples lives they're life deserves to be taken. It is not a must, but depending on that it is much cheaper than locking in people forever, it can be a proper way to punish somebody.

I can though agree that there are worse things than dying. It is easy to die but hard to live.

For example: A man named Daniel goes berserk and kills 10 children and cuts their limbs and throw them in the sea. He then kidnaps the mother and throws him in his pickup. He sneaks up on them while they are sleeping. The dad is dead. He then tortures the mom until she dies.

I don't really think such freaks deserve to live. It doesn't have to be murder either. Can be anything that is considered horrible on some level. Ofcourse all crimes are horrible, but i can judge if somebody deserves death penalty.

I'm all for an "eye-for-an-eye". Keep it plain and simple.

Pretty sure this topic has come up about 150 times on these forums before.

Capital punishment is tricky because every time a government kills someone with taxpayer money, that's implicating the entire populace in murder. I don't want my money spent in such a way, I'd rather see it used constructively.

No government should ever have the right to kill its own citizens and the people who wish to grant them this power are irrational idiots.

not really; if someone can be rehabilitated and integrated back into society, that would be best

an eye for an eye..

but it isnt that simple.. on one side i dont think anybody deserves to die by the hand of another, even if they have killed others.. because if we do, we are no better than them.

on the other side i think someone doesnt deserve to live if they committed such crimes.. i guess it depends on the crime and the person.. sometimes letting them live is more of a punishment than killing them.

This topic again ?

And no.

Hang'em by the balls

I'm really not in favor of it, if only because putting a falsely accused person to death makes us as tax payers an accessory to murder. I don't have a problem with locking people up for life though, as long as there is a reliable appeals process in place, and a case can be re-opevideo where evidence of innocence can be introduced upon it's discovery.

Yes, there are some cases that deserve it.
 
Some people inflict life long lasting trauma's on their victims, effectively cutting them off socially or affecting their ability to normally function. 

Nope, if we do that, we're just as bad as they are.

Yes, I think he or she who is executed learns a valuble lesson...........

I thought we were going to talk about video games.

In certain circumstances i would think that capital punishment is the correct course of action. That being said, it's very rare you are absolutely positively certain that a person charged with a heinous act did in fact commit that crime which complicates matters. At the end of the day it's better to let 1000 guilty men walk free then execute one innocent man.

If the person is a serial child rapist and murderer, why not.

If the person fooled around with somebody's wife or likes to stick it up buttocks, no.

Ps: it rages me that spoiled first world countries think every country on earth is able to house and feed a bunch of child rapists for the sake of being "liberal". Fuck you Norway, I like my serial killer fried.

Nope. I'd rather not have my taxes not spent on killing someone.

@Animasta said:

not really; if someone can be rehabilitated and integrated back into society, that would be best

Pretty sure we shouldn't integrate murderers and rapists back into society. But I also don't think the death penalty makes sense, wouldn't it be more cruel to force the criminal to live with himself in a small room for decades? Pretty sure murderers look at the death penalty as the easy way out, and I don't think punishment and appeasement go hand in hand.

@Aurelito: Discussing the death penalty should be a debate based on morality and justice, not economics. Saving a dime shouldn't be the reason you enforce capital punishment.

Killing people is fine, but if you're going to do it, do it cheaply so we can justify it from a financial standpoint.

I would be all for capital punishment IF it was possible to be 100% sure that you've got the right person. And that is virtually impossible. There is nearly always a slim, slim chance that you've got the wrong person. Since cases where you are 100% certain are so rare, implementing a two tier system where most people get jailed for life and a few cases where you're 100% certain get executed wouldn't be worth the effort. Implementing such a system would be costly and complicated, and since executions would only happen in the rarest of cases, it's not really worth the effort. Just stick everyone in jail and don't have capital punishment. That's the best option.

@Donkeycow said:

@Aurelito: Discussing the death penalty should be a debate based on morality and justice, not economics. Saving a dime shouldn't be the reason you enforce capital punishment.

Yes, but what if the person is really "bad"? I mean, these "liberal first world" countries are forcing their beliefs on others just because they have such a crippled judicial system that they're afraid to sentence someone to death through it. If a country has a perfect judicial system, like America does, it's okay for them to kill murderers and child rapists, because they're ill-fitted for the society.

Of course it depends on the crime, but yes, the death penalty is a proper way of punishment.

Depends on the crime. Wouldn't be fair if someone got caught stealing candy

@Aurelito: Oh yea, i'm not saying its not okay to have capital punishment (not that i necessarily personally support it) I was just refuting the argument of it being the economically sound option.

Honestly there are some crimes that deserve the death penalty. It should not at all be taken lightly, and should be saved for the worst of criminals, but people have done some things that are more horrible then you might want to believe.

No it isnt. And if you disagree, i will kill you. Wait...

@Donkeycow said:

@Aurelito: Discussing the death penalty should be a debate based on morality and justice, not economics. Saving a dime shouldn't be the reason you enforce capital punishment.

Yes, but what if the person is really "bad"? I mean, these "liberal first world" countries are forcing their beliefs on others just because they have such a crippled judicial system that they're afraid to sentence someone to death through it. If a country has a perfect judicial system, like America does, it's okay for them to kill murderers and child rapists, because they're ill-fitted for the society.

No. If it was infallible then sure, kill the killers, but The Innocence Project and others have cleared 140 people on death row.

"It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."

@Donkeycow said:

@Aurelito: Discussing the death penalty should be a debate based on morality and justice, not economics. Saving a dime shouldn't be the reason you enforce capital punishment.

Yes, but what if the person is really "bad"? I mean, these "liberal first world" countries are forcing their beliefs on others just because they have such a crippled judicial system that they're afraid to sentence someone to death through it. If a country has a perfect judicial system, like America does, it's okay for them to kill murderers and child rapists, because they're ill-fitted for the society.

Anyone accused of a crime should be put to death. The trial would occur post-mortem and if it was determined that the acusee was not guilty, the accuser would also be put to death.

We could use all the dead bodies to power the murder robots.

@Aurelito: Wait, what?

I really hope this is a joke. You DO realize that we imprison A LOT of innocent people, right? Just look at the West Memphis Three. They were given life for a murder they didn't commit and it took years and years before they were released, despite massive amounts of evidence proving their innocence, just because their local law enforcement didn't want to be embarrassed.

Prisoners should never be murdered unless their crime was so impossibly heinous that society cannot move on from it.

But there are political problems too. Mainly, for some well known prisoners, killing them would make them a martyr and inspire more people to lash out because of their death.

No. I used to be for it as a means to keep prison costs lower, but the more I thought about it, the more I was against it. It just doesn't seem right to do. I figure if I am going to call myself pro-life, then I shouldn't be for it.

No, never.

It is no deterrent to crimes of passion.

Wrongful convictions.

How can you expect the citizenry to respect human life, when the state does not?

I think that here in the U.S. if you get the death penalty they should use it when necessary but make it where that person has 3 months. Tired of hearing news about people who keep going through legal hoops to delay things.

@fox01313: thost tricksy hobbits with their due process, rigour, and using every extent of the law to prevent state-sanctioned murder.

If we are anything but 100% sure that the convicted criminal is responsible, capital punishment should not be used. And I don't think we can tell one killer that he deserves to die because there's a video of him doing it, while another killer gets to live because he chose to kill etc etc somebody out int he countryside. 
So no. 

If a person doesn't fear death, what punishment could he possibly fear enough to make it a worthwhile deterrent? I can't think of any threat of punishment that would deter someone who doesn't fear death.

And in fact, many murderers do fear death. The reason I believe this is, if they didn't fear death, why would they try so hard to avoid being convicted of murder? I would posit instead that murderers simply don't fear death enough to not commit murder, or rather they aren't afraid of being caught. This is actually a fair assessment, as the odds of getting away with murder are 1 in 2.

Then we get into an argument over the nature of public law and the nature of crime and punishment.

Public law exists to maintain order in a large, complex society. It takes the place of private law, which can lead to things like blood feuds. Certainly public law has a very useful function in modern society for the purpose of arbitrating disputes and enforcing payment of debt.

And this brings us to the theories behind many western public law systems. The idea is that a perpetrator owes a debt to the perpetratee. In the case of violations of public law, the perpetrator owes a debt to society. Government-enforced punishments force the perpetrator to pay this debt to society. The more serious the crime, the bigger the debt. Thus for the most serious crimes (murder and treason) the most serious punishment possible is used: death.

Punishment is ultimately not about personal revenge, or revenge at all. It's about maintaining order within society.

I don't support this "an eye for an eye" attitude, but I think the death penalty is a good punishment for people whose crimes are based on a psychological "illness" that cannot be cured, like child abusers. A lot of men who rape children are also repeat offenders. Rape of any kind is in general one of the worst crimes, but doing this to a fragile being like a child is even worse.

If they are definitely guilty and their crimes are bad enough enough, sure.

My take on this is that its simply an irreversible punishment and its enough that there's a possibility of just 1 person being wrongfully sentenced to death is enough cause for it not to be used. Wrongfully conviction is always wrong and bad but its on a whole different level when it comes to death sentences. Of course the argument can be made for especially gruesome crimes and what nots but then those criminals are probably better dealt with by being locked up at mental institutions for life instead. But my point is really that no system is perfect and mistakes will always be made and thus i think that that level of punishment simply steps over the line.

It's ethically unsound.

I'm more interesting whether or not killing extremely dangerous people guilty of horrible crimes would be overall economically positive or negative for society at large both from a financial aspect but also from a security standpoint. The potential pros and cons, more or less. That's a lot more interesting than a debate on ethics and the sanctity of life.

The only reason why I am against it, is because int eh cases where it is not 100% demonstrably true that, that person did X thing, then I don't want to risk an innocent person die.

Anders Behring Breivik however deserves to die, but by whos hand? It raises many questions, and I think if the prisons were worse shaped I might feel different. But he lives better then the poorest people in the world.

@Animasta said:

not really; if someone can be rehabilitated and integrated back into society, that would be best

If someone is willing to commit a crime, they should also be willing and prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. It's not the state's job to be responsible for individuals' decisions in life. God knows I wouldn't want to live in the US if it were.

if you're into punishment, then the death penalty doesn't make sense at all. you're not punishing someone by putting them to death; you're freeing them from having to deal with any punishment. how, exactly, is someone who doesn't exist anymore supposed to feel punished?

I think the punishment should be equal to the crime. If you kill someone you get killed the same way you killed them. You steal from someone, you have to pay back the worth of the item plus a little more. You Rape, you get raped.

@InternetCrab said:

I can though agree that there are worse things than dying. It is easy to die but hard to live.

For example: A man named Daniel goes berserk and kills 10 children and cuts their limbs and throw them in the sea. He then kidnaps the mother and throws him in his pickup. He sneaks up on them while they are sleeping. The dad is dead. He then tortures the mom until she dies.

I don't really think such freaks deserve to die. It doesn't have to be murder either. Can be anything that is considered horrible on some level. Ofcourse all crimes are horrible, but i can judge if somebody deserves death penalty.

The second half of your post makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say? You're providing an example for what? It's hard for who to live? Are you not trying to give an example of the worst possible type of crime? But he doesn't deserve the death penalty but others do?

@crusader8463 said:

I think the punishment should be equal to the crime. If you kill someone you get killed the same way you killed them. You steal from someone, you have to pay back the worth of the item plus a little more. You Rape, you get raped.

I don't support government sinking to the level of common criminals and raping people.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@crusader8463 said:

I think the punishment should be equal to the crime. If you kill someone you get killed the same way you killed them. You steal from someone, you have to pay back the worth of the item plus a little more. You Rape, you get raped.

I don't support government sinking to the level of common criminals and raping people.

What makes you think they need to sink any to act like common criminals? Just because the way they screw people over is legal doesn't make it any less justified.